Thread: linguistics and philosophy...

Are you familiar with Bandler and Grinder's work, particularly Neuro-Linguistic Programming?

Overall, I think the limitations of language you cite so elegantly are fundamental reasons for other arts - they are alternate means of communicating and thinking. A skilled writer or speaker can transcend the words themselves too - that is literature... poetry... prose... theater.

One of the reasons many disciplines use Latin is because it is a "dead" language - things written today will theoretically mean exactly the same thing a thousand years from now. Not so with languages in common use. Try reading English from just a couple hundred years ago, let alone a thousand. The languages change... with philosophy, technology, politics, society, and on and on. Language lives, as societies do.

Philosophy and language do have alot to do with each other, I do agree.

However, I think that langue makes it possible for people to have another level of though, like self dialuoge. So a great deal of our intelligence is in the fact we can translate the world and even abstract things to an even more abstract form in our minds. So we can control (think about it, understand it) better.

Language is like math, math on itself makes no sence really, it's all just like a useable mold for reality.

However, math is fact. Language indeed, like humanity, is flawed.

Or it really does matter, I do not know. I think that if we could somehow surpas our current basic languages and use another medium that is way better then this current half-ass-crappy langues, We as a human race could achieve perhaps way more mentally.

However, I think that would have to be a common proces. Like evolution on the scale of civiliatation. It might take alot less long then normal evolution, but still way long. Supercomputers and other usefull sientific discoveries will be albe to elevate us to a more efficient spieces on most area's, however perhaps philosophy can never be repoduced by a computer, not even by A.I. For it's about awnsering unawnserable questions, and computers suck at that ^__^

Nice topic!
I think that language is indeed limited. Flawed maybe. Perhaps our understanding is the limited area.
I can only speak for the most part of the English language. Some find that synonyms and Metaphors can muddle up conversation, discussion and philosophy. I think the opposite. These are terrific attributes to are language to further attempt to try and express the endless number of emotions a sentient being is capable of. It still falls short.
Since general philosophy is rather a broad term I will put it into the context of our consciousness.
Our consciousness. So complex. So many questions to ponder. It is as if we do not have a language that is a proper medium to discuss it. But it is all we have.
Maybe we need to take a deep look at ourselves, behaviors and our emotions and revise our language to make an attempt at further try and explain such conundrums of philosophy.
Anyone know a list of words that get added to our dictionaries each year?
And who decides this anyway? Just curious.

Originally posted by wombing
pretty self-explanatory topic methinks.

*philosophy is the excercising of our rational intellect by means of *verbo-intellectual thought. yet language is so limiting, subjective, and IMO flawed.

*i am coming to the point where words just don't cut it. it seems impossible for an objective philosophy to be contained or inherent within words (in the capacity of well-defined vessels of conceptual thought).

* "definition" is "a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol"

*it seems defintion is the aspect of language which nullifies any possibility for objectivity. every word is related to every other word. every concept is related to every other concept.

*different words can have a shared synonym and yet not be synonyms themselves. ultimately the relating aspect of language is unsatisfactory, and suitable for poetry, but not philosophy.

*"i think, therefore i am" * *

*is this famous philosophical maxim conveying anything? would it be equally as true to say "i am, therefore i think"?

*if not, where is the extraneous factor which descartes left out? if thought and being are not absolutely and completely interchangeable, how do they differ?

*
*i think this conveys my general drift. *

*any thoughts, especially from those who may have investigated the interrelation of linguisics and philosophy more in depth? anyone have a handle on chomsky's recent contributions to the field of linguistics? or heideger (sp), who i believe also incorporated language into his philosophy?

I knew you thought like me, Wombing It's just too weird. I've had all the thoughts you just presented here over the past few weeks, been discussing them with my friends. I took a test where I was asked to define some words without preparing beforehand. Even though I knew the words well I had a hard time defining them. After thinking about it I decided it was wrong to limit the existence of a word to a combination of equally ambiguous words. It's why I hated dictionaries as a child. If every word represents a string of different words, then which are the original words? Definitions just run you in logical circles without giving you a true meaning. Dictionary writers are equivocaters and bastards, I decided.

the people we call geniuses are those that excel at expression with one or many languages. Music, math, speech, writing, etc + etc. I think that we all have a potential for higher thinking, the problem is we have to filter our pure feelings into words and sentences to be understood. Language is a translation of thought, and so one's philosophy is limited not only by his own power but also the power of his language to represent him. I think that the future of mankind's development is tied to the evolution of language. I hate to use stereotypes but it's evident that asians are better at math. The Japanese far surpass the US in technology. I have japanese videos of robot battles as proof. Well, what makes them so smart? genetics? that's not an acceptable belief in today's world. No, I think it's because asian languages are some of the most complex and difficult on earth. Regardless of race or creed, one thing most exceptionally intelligent people have is facility of expression. If a culture teaches its young a better language from birth, it will be more articulate and therefore smarter.

I make this claim because I believe that empathy outweighs intelligence.. one who can add his mind to another's is better off than a genius who can't stand working with others. You know, two heads are better than one, and so the best heads are those that fit nicely with other heads, not necessarily the most powerful ones.

This may seem unrelated, but it isn't. Dig this...

About 60% of people who speak Chinese as their first language have perfect pitch. About .01% of people who speak English as their first language have perfect pitch.

The correlation has been separated from genetic influence. I do not believe there are genetic influences in the other areas that have been brought up either - mathematics, technology, etc... There are proven linguistic influences.

Nobody's responded to my NLP question, so I presume nobody else is familiar with it. Neuro-linguistic programming recognizes the role of language not only in how we think but in our behavior and responses as well. It treats language in the same way that a computer programmer treats language... as an interface to the "hardware." Different languages each have their own strong and weak points. Some are far more efficient but way more difficult to program, for example.

Bandler and Grinder studied a number of very successful people who specialized in behavior modification and worked out the common elements. Among those studies were Erickson's hypnosis techniques, Gestalt psychology, and the therapy work of Virginia Satir. The result was a sort of "tool box" of techniques.

At the root of it all, NLP recognizes that:
- behavior starts from neurological processes
- language is used to organize communications and thought
- behavior can be changed quickly and effectively by changing people's beliefs about themselves through the use of language

The sorts of people who are drawn to LD, I would think, would quite naturally find NLP interesting and useful. I have used the tools to deal with phobias, haunting memories, lack of confidence, anger and fear with great success. I also use the "accessing cues" when involved in business communications - an incredibly accurate (if done right) means to determine if a person is being straight with you or not.

Originally posted by Dangeruss+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dangeruss)</div>

The people we call geniuses are those that excel at expression with one or many languages. Music, math, speech, writing, etc + etc. I think that we all have a potential for higher thinking, the problem is we have to filter our pure feelings into words and sentences to be understood. Language is a translation of thought, and so one's philosophy is limited not only by his own power but also the power of his language to represent him. I think that the future of mankind's development is tied to the evolution of language. I hate to use stereotypes but it's evident that asians are better at math. The Japanese far surpass the US in technology. I have japanese videos of robot battles as proof. Well, what makes them so smart? genetics? that's not an acceptable belief in today's world. No, I think it's because asian languages are some of the most complex and difficult on earth. Regardless of race or creed, one thing most exceptionally intelligent people have is facility of expression. If a culture teaches its young a better language from birth, it will be more articulate and therefore smarter.

I make this claim because I believe that empathy outweighs intelligence.. one who can add his mind to another's is better off than a genius who can't stand working with others. You know, two heads are better than one, and so the best heads are those that fit nicely with other heads, not necessarily the most powerful ones.[/b]

I have to disagree with you on a few points Dangeruss.
The people's brains who do excel in a specific area, seem to usually come with a price. For most genie lack in other areas. A big portion of the time, it is communication with others. So they may be able to excel in Math or other mediums, but is their true intent to communicate? I think it is something they understand, yet thay do not know how to communicate cognitivly with the average laymen. So one of my points are that regardless of how many heads that areput together, they may all still think on a linear plane. Where as the genius can and has the capacity to think outside the structure of ordinary peoples.
And you also say that we are capable of higher learning. I agree. This is why I disagree that the Japanese are genetically superior. Their culture has reamed education down their throat and into their brains. No summer vacations, no getting of at mid afternoon. They have gained an advantage through their resolve to educate. Where here in the US, we have become lax. That is my opinion anyway.

<!--QuoteBegin-pj
About 60% of people who speak Chinese as their first language have perfect pitch. About .01% of people who speak English as their first language have perfect pitch

= Wow!
Neuro-linguistic programming ? Is this a program then or an instructional Class or CD?

- behavior starts from neurological processes *
- language is used to organize communications and thought *
- behavior can be changed quickly and effectively by changing people's beliefs about themselves through the use of language[/b]

Is this in the order it ocurrs?
Language is, when brokenen down just a means of communicaton. So it stands to reason that some languages are more refined as a means to communicate than others.

"i think, therefore i am"
I am, therefore I think.
Conscousness. "is". From there everything is attached.

Originally posted by Howetzer


[Neuro-linguistic programming ? Is this a program then or an instructional Class or CD?
(snip)
Is this in the order it ocurrs?
Language is, when brokenen down just a means of communicaton. So it stands to reason that some languages are more refined as a means to communicate than others.
Conscousness. "is". From there everything is attached.

It's not really an order at all. It is a set of conclusions based on a lot of research, observation and testing. Their conclusions, though, demonstrate that language is a LOT more than a means of communication. It composes the actual "software" that the brain uses to think and reason, if you can accept the computer metaphor.

Regarding the other observations in your post, my reply to this thread may be of interest to you:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....9164&highlight=

These are areas I've been interested in and studying for almost 15 years now. It is very difficult to nail down anything as absolute in this realm... but finding things that demonstratably work can be very exciting. In fact, my first exposure to LD was through that research... and I dismissed it at the time. Now I know better.

I agree with the software theory. I speak french almost as well as I do English (well, maybe not almost) and I find myself thinking in a bastardization of the two. When I write notes to myself I use a mix of the two. I think it's helped me knowing two languages, I feel like I have more control over my thoughts and my expression since I decided to take french seriously.

There's a teacher at my school who speaks something like 6 or 7 languages perfectly. He's a bit of a linguistic genius, I guess. Anyway, he knows so many languages that sometimes if you ask him a simple question his brain locks up and he has to do some heavy thinking before he can answer you. I can see this happening, sometimes I feel limited because there are just too many ways to say something and it takes too long to find the one I'm looking for. Knowing as much about languages as this guy must be truly debilitating but at the same time totally bitchin'.

and Tsen: I would submit that math is as much of a language as english. Mathematicians don't invent the math, they discover it, and they explain it like any other concept. Just as calculus involves new symbols and notation but is more precise than basic algebra, Asian languages have many more characters and more difficult structure but seem to work as better brain 'firmware' and allow for greater depth of expression. Lacking in one form of expression often leads to strength in another. Personally, I take writing seriously because I'm no good at drawing, and I feel as though I need a lot more training in writing than an artist would in art to reach the same level of expression. There's something about drawing that I love, but I've never been skilled in it so I compensate by writing. Just like the blind hear better, just like autistics can perform amazing feats of intelligence, I believe that a large shortcoming in one 'language' (ie math vs english vs music vs drawing) can trigger an overemphasis on another in the brain and lead to something much like genius.

Originally posted by pj


It's not really an order at all. *It is a set of conclusions based on a lot of research, observation and testing. *Their conclusions, though, demonstrate that language is a LOT more than a means of communication. *It composes the actual "software" that the brain uses to think and reason, if you can accept the computer metaphor.
Regarding the other observations in your post, my reply to this thread may be of interest to you:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....9164&highlight=

These are areas I've been interested in and studying for almost 15 years now. *It is very difficult to nail down anything as absolute in this realm... but finding things that demonstratably work can be very exciting. *In fact, my first exposure to LD was through that research... and I dismissed it at the time. *Now I know better.

Awesome. Thanks. So much good stuff to read and not enough time.
I may just begin an entire new post.
I think the computer metephor is very accurate.
the more advanced computers get the closer they resemble the processes of our brains.